Hindu Proof of God: Best Arguments

[Spirit_Warrior]

^^ Correction ---- singer thunder -- single finger lol

 

[ratiocinator]

You are again begging the question. I do not experience myself as a complex/composite entity, I am myself as a singular and indivisible entity....

Try addressing the points I actually made.

Do you deny having a sub-conscious? Can you control what things 'spring to mind' when thinking about something else? At the very simplest level - you have memories and experiences and you process them in order to produce behaviour. So, you have a conscious monologue - you have a sub-conscious, you have memory, you have the ability to think about that memory, you have inclinations, hopes, fears and preferences, you have emotions.

To claim that minds are not complex is a blatant denial of reality.

It is only one of your hypothesis that the body(including the brain) is me, but that is certainly not true of reality as we experience it.

This is why you are begging the question. You first have to prove that I am the same thing as the body(which is a composite entity) before you can use that as proof that intelligence is also a complex functional system.

Firstly, I don't have to 'prove' it - the evidence strongly indicates that the sense of personhood is produced by the brain. If you think that is incorrect and there is something else, it is up to you to provide the evidence or argument.

Secondly, if the 100 billion neurons aren't busy being you - what are they there for?

 

[ratiocinator]

1. The laws of nature require a maintainer so that life can exist and persist moment to moment.

2. Complex functional systems are ALWAYS, without exception guided by intelligent agents.

Actually, you haven't provided a single cogent argument to back up either of these. The first is just a bizarre assertion that the laws of physics somehow need maintaining. The second is an assertion that seems to rest on being unable to understand evolution (among other things).

 

[sayak83]

You have not refuted my argument, you have once again, as it has become typical of you now, just avoided the argument. I have never actually contended that stars and planets can form with our current laws of physics, in fact I know they can,

As is typical of you, you have chosen to avoid admitting that your primary points have been entirely refuted by posting a wall of inconsistent texts. Let me remind you then about what you said,
You said in post #80:-

The idea that any kind of blind chaotic collisions could assemble itself into anything useful is an unproven fantasy of materialists. It is very easy to test, we can set up a supercomputer with a particle program with the same properties as elementary particles, and then have those particles randomly collide with one another, and see if that ever leads to any useful functional systems.

Obviously galactic clusters, stars and planets, even atoms and molecules fully satisfy the criteria of being a complex whole that is useful and functional.
For example an atom is a complex whole composed of many useful and functional parts, and as a whole has an entire slew of novel and useful properties that the parts do not have.
1) It is a complex structure:- Atom's outer section is made up of multiple electrons that are subdivided into many shells (s, p, d, f). Each electron shell has its own unique properties and each shell grants an atoms a set of chemical and electrical and magnetic and spectroscopic properties that it otherwise will not have.

2) Its center is composed of protons and neutrons, again arranged in nucleic shells that once again gives the atom both stability, mass and charge neutrality as well as many other important properties (LINK), like the presence or absence of radioactivity, fusion potential etc.

3) All the constituent parts together actively contribute to the stability of the atom. Remove the electrons, and the bare atomic nuclei will rapidly fall apart. The neutrons can only retain stability inside the atomic nucleus and the atom as a whole becomes unstable (radioactive) is the balance of protons and neutrons are perturbed.

4) The atom, as a whole , has many new and completely emergent properties that its constituent parts (proton, neutrons and electrons) do not have. These include chemical properties (reactivity, affinity to form bonds), ability to form large groups in crystals, other solids or liquids, electrical properties (ability to conduct electricity), ability to absorb, reflect or emit light to have properties of color, heat transfer etc. etc. None of these properties exist in electrons, protons or neutrons at all, but only emerge in the complex whole of an atom.

Thus it is established that atoms are a useful and functionally complex wholes made up of many essential parts who have important functions within the this complex whole of the atom.

Exactly similar case can be made for
1) Solar systems
2) Stars
3) Galaxies
4) Galactic clusters
5) Weather systems on planets (like earth)

Each of these are useful and functionally complex whole with many new properties that emerge only at the holistic level and absent in their parts. But this complex whole is made up of many essential parts that serve useful functions for maintaining and sustain the existence and rich complexity of the emergent whole system.

And I have shown you how each of these useful functional systems of complex wholes emerge sequentially from nothing but the random collision of particles following the elementary laws of physics from the initial uniform hot energy soup of the early universe.

Life itself is just another form of such complex useful and functional wholes that have emerged in the universe just like all the other systems above. And, I have also shown you how these very same physical and chemical processes occurring now on the surface of early earth naturally and spontaneously assembled into the first forms of life.

In Conclusion:- Your charge that I have avoided your question is thoroughly refuted. It has been satisfactorily answered and you have been roundly defeated in all your contentions.

but I questioned remember in the OP that it just happens to be that all our laws and constants are fine-tuned for the stars and planets to form. Read the article cited in the OP again which mentions that the conditions just happen be to be right for stable matter to arise, for stars to arise, for planets to arise etc. So that is the first part of my argument.

I am not here to discuss fine-tuning. I am here to discuss whether the laws of physics, as they are, are sufficient or not to explain the emergence of useful, functional and complex wholes (like life or galaxies or atoms) from the initial particle soup of the early universe. I consider that science has clearly and irrefutably shown that they are. You, due to ignorance of science, and taken by the rants of dishonest fundamentalist Christian apologists, deny this fact. That is point of the debate between you and me.

The second part is complex functional systems NOT complex structures. I have already defined several times in this thread that a complex functional system is a system is many parts(in the case of a single cell that is millions of parts) that interconnect with one another to form a single functioning system, such that it is irreducibly complex, meaning that if even one part was missing, the entire system would not function.

Then the atom is irreducibly complex as it will not function without its nucleus would it? Would galaxies function without its central black whole or the spiral arms? The solar system will break up without Jupiter. Or, looking the other way, the human body is not irreducibly complex as I can still function adequately even if all my head hair falls of. In fact, I cannot be irreducibly complex as I fully remember I living through my baby teeth falling off to be eventually and gradually replaced by adult teeth. Understandably, because you have been deluded by Christian creationist nonsense, your understanding and definition of irreducibly complex is unworkable.
In fact galaxies, planets, solar systems, weather systems, carbon or water cycles, and life are all equally good examples of complex useful and functional systems and all of them can be demonstrated to have emerged from sequential segregation of particles from the hot soup of the early universe following the blind laws of physics. This I have demonstrated.

The body and its various organs are extremely complicated systems, down to a single cell itself. That in order to replicate the same systems we need to develop extremely advanced systems that can do the same e.g. just to get something to jump requires this:

Origin and evolution of cellular replication through step-by-step natural processes explained.
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf

Basically the very latest in 21st robotics technology to get even close to what nature has designed. It gives you an idea of just how complicated the systems in the body are, for which we have only crude approximations:

Brain ---- Computer
Eyes ---- Camera
Ears ---- Microphones
Heart ---- Pump
Arms and legs --- Robotics
Stomach --- Internal combustion engine
Wings(in birds) --- Aeroplanes
Cells ---- Nanobots

All of this only establishes the simple fact that human methods of designing complex systems are vastly different from the natural processes by which complex functional systems like cells or planets or organs have emerged. Thus our technology and design products bear only superficial resemblance to naturally emergent complex whole systems. Thus, your argument proves that deliberate design can be easily and clearly separated from naturally emergent complex wholes since their outcomes are so very very different.

So what you are failing to acknowledge either out of ignorance or arrogance that nature has designed far more advanced complex functional systems than we have, where not only do all the parts interconnect, the parts can replicate and are adaptive. It is a natural technology we are still very far from replicating.

Let us just look at one example, the eye:

Several parts function together to create the function of vision:

Cornea​

Tough, transparent covering over the front part of the eye. Convex in shape.

Refracts light as it enters the eye (by a fixed amount).

Iris

Coloured part of the eye that contains muscles. These relax or contract to adjust the size of the pupil.

Controls how much light enters the pupil.

Pupil

Hole in the middle of the iris.

Allows light to pass through as it enters the eye.

Lens

Transparent, bi-convex, flexible disc behind the iris. It is attached to the ciliary muscles by the suspensory ligaments.

Refracts light to focus it onto the retina. The amount of refraction can be adjusted by altering the thickness and curvature of the lens.

Ciliary muscles

Muscles connected to the lens by suspensory ligaments.

Adjust the shape of the lens to make it more or less curved, so as to increase or decrease the refraction of light.

Suspensory ligaments

Connect the ciliary muscles to the lens and hold the lens in place.

Slacken or stretch as the ciliary muscles contract or relax, to adjust the thickness and curvature of the lens.

Retina

The lining of the back of eye containing two types of light receptor cells. Rods are sensitive to dim light and black and white. Cones are sensitive to colour.

Contains the light receptors, which trigger electrical impulses to be sent to the brain when light is detected

What you are failing to acknowledge probably due to both ignorance and arrogance that the natural step-by-step evolutionary process by which this complex visual system evolved out of a simple single light-sensitive protein is very well known and bolstered by extensive evidence. I encourage you to read and watch in order to understand the natural pathway by which the eye emerged before embarrassing yourself by such demonstration of ignorant arrogance.
Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup

And once again, humans beings are expected to have extreme difficulty in replicating naturally emergent complex functional wholes found in nature precisely because the method is so radically different. For humans its deliberately planned top-down design, but all these emergent complex wholes are various outcomes of particles naturally following the laws of physics from the bottom up. That is why the similarities between camera, plane or computer with eye, wings or brain is so utterly superficial. Nature's way is not our way and nature's systems are not our designs.

In Conclusion:- All the points raised by the opponent have been adequately refuted and it has been clearly shown that the opponent is arguing merely from ignorance of facts rather than any deep new insight into the nature of reality.

 

[sayak83]

Stages of eye evolution
Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup

Stage 1: bilateral ancestor (>580 million years ago (Mya))

• Animals with bilateral symmetry exist2.
• Numerous families of genes exist22.
• A range of G-protein-coupled signalling cascades exist146.
• A primordial opsin has evolved into three major classes: rhabdomeric opsins, photoisomerase-like opsins and ciliary opsins147.
• A rhabdomeric-type photoreceptor has evolved, using a Gq-based signalling cascade with a rhabdomeric opsin9.
• A ciliary-type photoreceptor has evolved, using a variant opsin (the stem ciliary opsin) that probably coupled to a Go-based signalling cascade8,61,92,148.

~580 Mya

• Protostomes separate from our line (deuterostomes).

Stage 2: protochordates (580–550 Mya)

• The ciliary photoreceptor and ciliary opsin continue to evolve, becoming similar to those in extant amphioxus and ascidian larvae57,58,62,67.
• A primordial RPE65-like isomerase evolves62,65.

These protochordates had ciliary photoreceptors with a ciliary opsin and a hyperpolarizing response, and were able to regenerate 11-cis retinal in darkness.

~550 Mya

• Cephalochordates and tunicates separate from our line (chordates).

Stage 3: ancestral craniates (~550–530 Mya)

• A ciliary photoreceptor evolves that has well organized outer-segment membranes, an output synapse close to the soma and a synaptic specialization appropriate for graded signal transmission42,86.
• Ciliary photoreceptors make synaptic contact onto projection neurons that might have been descendants of rhabdomeric photoreceptors9,69.
• The eye-field region of the diencephalon bulges to form lateral ‘eye vesicles’149.
• These lateral vesicles invaginate, bringing the proto-retina into apposition with the proto-retinal pigment epithelium149.
• A primordial lens placode develops, preventing pigmentation of the overlying skin145.

The resulting paired lateral photoreceptive organs would have resembled the ‘eyes’ of extant hagfish, lacking any image-forming apparatus and subserving non-visual functions.

~530 Mya

• Myxiniformes (hagfish) separate from our line (vertebrates).

Stage 4: lamprey-like ancestors (~530–500 Mya)

• Photoreceptors develop cone-like features:
  • Highly-ordered sac/disc membranes evolve81.
  • Mitochondria become concentrated within the ellipsoid region of the inner segment81.
  • Coloured filter material is incorporated into the inner segment for spectral tuning83.
  • Ribbon synapses evolve in the synaptic terminal78.
  • Genome duplications give rise to multiple copies of the phototransduction genes23,24,28,29.
  • Cell classes diverge to give five separate cone-like photoreceptors, each with its own ciliary opsin and with isoforms of transduction proteins38,90,93,108.
• Retinal computing power increases:
  • Cone bipolar cells evolve, either from proto-neurons or from photoreceptors114,150.
  • The bipolar cells insert into the pathway from photoreceptors to ganglion cells, through the retraction of photoreceptor processes and the incorporation of new contacts114,126.
  • Bi-plexiform ganglion cells develop37.
  • A highly organized three-layered neuronal structure with two intervening plexiform layers develops50,51.
• Ganglion-cell axons project to the thalamus44,45.
• The optics evolve (the lens, accommodation and eye movement):
  • The lens placode invaginates and develops to form a lens151.
  • The iris develops and a degree of pupillary constriction becomes possible84.
  • Innervated extra-ocular muscles evolve152.

The resulting eye and visual system would have resembled that in extant lampreys and would have provided spatial vision at photopic intensities and over a broad wavelength range.

~500 Mya

• Petromyzoniformes (lampreys) separate from our line.

Stage 5: jawless fish (~500–430 Mya)

• Myelin evolves and is incorporated throughout the nervous system153.
• Rod photoreceptors evolve:
  • Rhodopsin evolves from cone opsin38,93.
  • Rod isoforms of most transduction cascade proteins arise90,108.
  • Free-floating discs pinch off within the plasma membrane.
• Rod bipolar cells evolve, possibly from rod photoreceptors114.
• The scotopic rod pathway evolves, with a new subset of amacrine cells (AII) providing input into the pre-existing cone pathway154,155.
• A highly contractile iris evolves that can adjust light levels156.
• Intrinsic eye muscles develop that permit accommodation of the lens157.

This eye possessed a duplex retina that contained both rods and cones, together with retinal wiring that closely resembled that of jawed vertebrates, with colour-coded photopic pathways and a dedicated scotopic pathway; it was probably similar to that found in many extant fish.

~430 Mya

• The last jawless fish separate from our own line (gnathostomes).

Stage 6: gnathostomes (<430 Mya)

• In the case of tetrapods:
  • The lens develops an elliptical shape to compensate for the added refractive power that is provided by the cornea in air158.
  • The dermal component of the split cornea is lost and the eyelids evolve149.
  • Certain opsin classes are lost, for example, SWS2 and Rh2 in mammals, under extended nocturnal conditions159.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

1) It is a complex structure:- Atom's outer section is made up of multiple electrons that are subdivided into many shells (s, p, d, f). Each electron shell has its own unique properties and each shell grants an atoms a set of chemical and electrical and magnetic and spectroscopic properties that it otherwise will not have.

2) Its center is composed of protons and neutrons, again arranged in nucleic shells that once again gives the atom both stability, mass and charge neutrality as well as many other important properties (LINK), like the presence or absence of radioactivity, fusion potential etc.

3) All the constituent parts together actively contribute to the stability of the atom. Remove the electrons, and the bare atomic nuclei will rapidly fall apart. The neutrons can only retain stability inside the atomic nucleus and the atom as a whole becomes unstable (radioactive) is the balance of protons and neutrons are perturbed.

4) The atom, as a whole , has many new and completely emergent properties that its constituent parts (proton, neutrons and electrons) do not have. These include chemical properties (reactivity, affinity to form bonds), ability to form large groups in crystals, other solids or liquids, electrical properties (ability to conduct electricity), ability to absorb, reflect or emit light to have properties of color, heat transfer etc. etc. None of these properties exist in electrons, protons or neutrons at all, but only emerge in the complex whole of an atom.

Thus it is established that atoms are a useful and functionally complex wholes made up of many essential parts who have important functions within the this complex whole of the atom.

Exactly similar case can be made for
1) Solar systems
2) Stars
3) Galaxies
4) Galactic clusters
5) Weather systems on planets (like earth)

^^ All of the above does not refute argument #1, that is that the all the variables that lead to stable matter etc are already set from the beginning. Refute this argument, if you are trying to refute.

Stages of eye evolution
Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup

This does not actually refute argument #2. There are two arguments you need to refuted

1. Irreducible complexity: Irreducible complexity does NOT say that simple systems cannot evolve into complex systems, all it say is that both are irreducible, meaning that if a single part was missing the system would not function e.g. if the optic nerve was missing, we would not see anything. It just happens to be the case that the optic nerve just happens to be there to take the data to be decoded by the brain

2. Delay in time: When we design a system, it takes time to place every part in the right place, we build the system part by part from basic parts to advanced parts; similarly it has taken time for nature to place every part in the right place to form the current human eye. What you have not refuted, that it just happens to be, that nature knew exactly what parts to put and then to connect an optic nerve to it to another part, the brain, and knew exactly what region of the brain to connect it to. if was random, you should be able to show me an example of an eye without an optic nerve.

You do not refute my argument that nature/blind matter does NOT know what to design, what to keep and what to discard. I have conclusively demonstrated this with several thought experiments e.g. Maze, Mona Lisa, Hamlet, and circuit diagram. You need to show me positive evidence that a chaotic system could ever form something like an eye, or forget an eye, any kind of intelligent design. I showed you earlier a random letter generator, and all it ever produced was random nonsense. Therefore, you carry the burden of proof, because you are claiming that blind matter self-assembles into an eye etc. I say Disney.

​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

.... Lets just just say it straight and religious people need to have the courage to say it: Materialists are cartoonists. They believe in ridiculous things that you only see in cartoons

1. Unconscious matter, like rocks, come alive
2. Unconscious matter self-assembles into the body, consisting of millions of parts, including the eye, brain etc each connected to one another
3. Unconscious matter then starts asking questions like "Who am I"?

Religious people/non materialists need to have the courage to tell them how ridiculous their beliefs are, in very much the same way they tell us our beliefs are ridiculous e.g. They call our beliefs "woo woo" you should give it back to them, and call their beliefs cartoons

 

[ratiocinator]

What you have not refuted, that it just happens to be, that nature knew exactly what parts to put and then to connect an optic nerve to it to another part, the brain, and knew exactly what region of the brain to connect it to. if was random, you should be able to show me an example of an eye without an optic nerve.

You really need learn something about how evolution works. Natural selection isn't random in that way - seriously - do you think scientists are stupid?

Nature didn't need to know anything. Each of the small changes that led to the eye had an advantage in its own right.

See: Is the human eye irreducibly complex?

When you've actually grasped the concept of evolution by natural selection, perhaps you'll be able to make a better argument - but arguing from total ignorance of the scientific explanation is doing you no favours - it just makes you look daft...

 

[ratiocinator]

Lets just just say it straight and religious people need to have the courage to say it: Materialists are cartoonists. They believe in ridiculous things that you only see in cartoons

1. Unconscious matter, like rocks, come alive
2. Unconscious matter self-assembles into the body, consisting of millions of parts, including the eye, brain etc each connected to one another
3. Unconscious matter then starts asking questions like "Who am I"?

Yes, that's a cartoon misrepresentation of the science that has been explained to you. And argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Yes, that's a cartoon misrepresentation of the science that has been explained to you. And argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.

Who was talking about science?

You don't own science, you just think you do.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who was talking about science?

You were. You have already been given the scientific explanation and yet you blatantly misrepresented it when you said this:

What you have not refuted, that it just happens to be, that nature knew exactly what parts to put and then to connect an optic nerve to it to another part, the brain, and knew exactly what region of the brain to connect it to. if was random, you should be able to show me an example of an eye without an optic nerve.

You don't own science, you just think you do.

Nobody owns science - I just do my best to understand it before I talk about it. You should try it sometime.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

So your link says this:

Here’s an abbreviated version of the leading model:

1. A mutation resulted in a single photoreceptor cell, which allowed the organism to respond to light and helped to calibrate circadian rhythms by detecting daylight.
2. Over successive generations, possessing multiple photoreceptors became the norm in the gene pool, because individuals with mutations encoding for an increased number of photoreceptors were better able to react to their surroundings. An arms race began, fueling the evolution of the new sensory organ.
3. Eventually, what was once just a single photoreceptor cell became a light-sensitive patch. At this point, the creature was still only able to distinguish light from dark.
4. A slight depression in the patch created a pit, for the first time allowing a limited ability to sense from which direction light or shadow was coming from.
5. The pit’s opening gradually narrowed to create an aperture — like that of a pinhole camera — making vision sharper.
6. The aqueous humour formed. A colourless, gelatinous mass filling the chamber of the eye, it helped to maintain the shape of the eye and keep the light sensitive retina in place.
7. At the front, a transparent tissue with a concave curvature for refracting light formed. The addition of this simple lens drastically improved image fidelity.
8. A transparent layer evolved in front of the lens. This transparent layer, the cornea, further focused light, and also allowed for more blood vessels, better circulation, and larger eyes.
9. Behind the cornea, a circular ring formed, the iris, with a hole in its centre, the pupil. By constricting, the iris was able to control the amount of light that reached the retina through the pupil.

Separation of these two layers allowed another gelatinous mass to form, the aqueous humor, which further increased refractive power.

My repy: As I have already stated before in response to argument 2, and I wil say it again, til you actually refute the argument I am making, rather than strawmans

1. Irreducible complexity does NOT say that simple systems cannot evolve into complex systems, it just says that both are irreducibly complex, meaning that if a single part is missing the sysrem will not function e.g. if optic nerve is missing in the human eye, you would not be able to see, because there would be nothing linking to the brain to send the signals. Furthermore, if there was no decoding apparatus in the brain, again the system would not function. This shows not only is the eye itself irreducibly complex, but the eye and the brain together are irreducibly complex.

The very first stage a photo-receptor cell is irreducibly complex. Magnify on it and you will find a nanouniverse of extremely intricate machinery and computing.

2. Nobody is saying that complex functional systems appeared magically. What we are saying they evolved gradually over time, hence we are NOT refuting evolution, just one theory of theory evolution known as natural selection. We are saying the sequence of mutations indicates intelligent design. Even when you put together a human made system, it takes time to put it together, it does not just magically appear in one go, however we can infer it is intelligently designed by the sequence it is put together in. Similarly, we can infer that nature is intelligently designing by the sequence it is put in. The above description only confirms that nature knew exactly the right sequence.

In particular, this "Over successive generations, possessing multiple photoreceptors became the norm in the gene pool" How does nature know what to retain and what to discard. As the thought experiment with the blind man in the maze proves, the blind man does not know which direction is right and which is wrong; if he goes right he does know it is right; if he goes wrong he does not know it is wrong. Without positing memory you cannot justify that nature retains anything.

Finally, we can totally differentiate between a random mutation and an intelligent mutation. A random mutation destroys DNA it NEVER improves it. Therefore, we know for a fact mutations are NOT random.
​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You were. You have already been given the scientific explanation and yet you blatantly misrepresented it when you said this

Because it is not a scientific explanation, it is a materialist belief system. You keep forgetting that nobody really knows how evolution works, we know that it happens, but whether it happens by natural selection or intelligent design is open to debate.

Nobody owns science - I just do my best to understand it before I talk about it. You should try it sometime.

I already said my specialism is Philosophy of Science, --- yeah so I know Popper, Kuhn etc, meaning I have a critical understanding of science and its limitations. I dont treat it as a belief system like you do. Besides, these "You don't understand science" are just adhomimens, because the people who make arguments like mine such as ID are scientists themselves with double and triple Phds in science. Hence, why I am saying, you don't own science. You use science to back up your belief system, like any other religion does. I just have the courage to tell you it IS a belief system. You are as religious in your faith as any other religion is. Your beliefs are just as ridiculous as well as many religions.

 

[ratiocinator]

How does nature know what to retain and what to discard.

A random mutation destroys DNA it NEVER improves it. Therefore, we know for a fact mutations are NOT random.

Both of these quotes demonstrate total ignorance of the theory of evolution. The first has an obvious answer (it doesn't need to know - it's natural selection) and the second is simply untrue.

You've been pointed at resources and others have posted lots of detail but if you're simply not interested in learning (even for the purpose of 'know your enemy') then you will continue to make a fool of yourself like this.

Think, if you understood natural selection, you would be able to make an argument that used that knowledge - instead of the silly "how does nature know..." stuff.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Both of these quotes demonstrate total ignorance of the theory of evolution. The first has an obvious answer (it doesn't need to know - it's natural selection) and the second is simply untrue.

You've been pointed at resources and others have posted lots of detail but if you're simply not interested in learning (even for the purpose of 'know your enemy') then you will continue to make a fool of yourself like this.

Think, if you understood natural selection, you would be able to make an argument that used that knowledge - instead of the silly "how does nature know..." stuff.

LOL, my dear, you just vindicated what I just said in the previous post. These attacks like "You don't understand science" or "you don't understand natural selection" blah blah are just adhominem attacks. As I pointed out people who make arguments like mine, like say Behe of course understand science, evolution etc. His qualifications:

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School.[7][8] He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.


​

As for myself. Sure, I don't have any degrees in biology, physics or chemistry. I don't need to, to do what I do. I have a degree with a specialism in Philosophy of Science. I only have to look at the Philosophy aspect of biology, physics or chemistry. If I had a degree in either subject, I would be working in a lab as a technician. I would have only technical knowledge. For example those working as quantum physicists, know how to deal with quantum physics equations and how to use various scientific instruments, but they they may know nothing about the philosophy of quantum physics, its implications and the history of its ideas etc. As one quantum physicist once put it "Shut up, and just calculate" This is why there is a need for thinkers like me to do what the technicians don't do.

I don't know natural selection in detail, say beyond High school Biology, but I know the basics and I know philosophically it is a blind process. That is all I need to know to debate it philosophically.

You cannot produce one, just one example of a blind process ever building any single complex functional system.
Your belief is not justified by empirical evidence. You believe that a blind process created your body, which is fine you have a right to believe what you want, but I have a right to tell you it is ridiculous. It is a fantasy only seen in cartoons. I also have the courage to tell you this. A lot of people actually think it too, especially on this forum, but because it simply uncool to go against the modern scientific dogma, people keep quiet because they don't want to lose reputation. Myself, on the other hand, as Aupmanyav also pointed out earlier, "true warrior" couldn't give a damn about reputation. I speak what I think. As long as I follow the rules of decorum I can say whatever I want.

 

[sayak83]

1. Irreducible complexity does NOT say that simple systems cannot evolve into complex systems, it just says that both are irreducibly complex, meaning that if a single part is missing the sysrem will not function e.g. if optic nerve is missing in the human eye, you would not be able to see, because there would be nothing linking to the brain to send the signals. Furthermore, if there was no decoding apparatus in the brain, again the system would not function. This shows not only is the eye itself irreducibly complex, but the eye and the brain together are irreducibly complex.​

You should read up on the evolution of the nervous system then. The nervous system evolved along with the eye from very simple precursors in a step by step format through evolution by natural selection. As demonstrated by science here,
Table of Contents — December 19, 2015, 370 (1684) | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

The very first stage a photo-receptor cell is irreducibly complex. Magnify on it and you will find a nanouniverse of extremely intricate machinery and computing.

A photoreceptor also evolved from very simple precursors through step by step fashion by evolution through natural selection. As demonstrated by science. Here is a sample
Evolution of opsins and phototransduction
Knowledge regarding the evolution of the photoreceptor from simpler precursors is so vast that entire science books have been written about it.
Photoprocesses, Photoreceptors, and Evolution

Once again it is seen that you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance.

2. Nobody is saying that complex functional systems appeared magically. What we are saying they evolved gradually over time, hence we are NOT refuting evolution, just one theory of theory evolution known as natural selection.

There is outstanding and irrefutable evidence of that the natural selection is the dominant mechanism of evolution to which there are other minor contributors.

We are saying the sequence of mutations indicates intelligent design.

It does not. All your examples so far have been decisively refuted. Continue trying and failing. We have time.

Even when you put together a human made system, it takes time to put it together, it does not just magically appear in one go, however we can infer it is intelligently designed by the sequence it is put together in. Similarly, we can infer that nature is intelligently designing by the sequence it is put in. The above description only confirms that nature knew exactly the right sequence.

I have already refuted this. There is only superficial similarities between naturally emergent complex functional systems and human designed systems. Below the surface they are like apples and oranges..nay apples and stones. No usable similarities can be drawn between them.

In particular, this "Over successive generations, possessing multiple photoreceptors became the norm in the gene pool" How does nature know what to retain and what to discard.

Here is how.
What is Evolution?

This is a mathematical proof present in every introductory college textbook on evolution. Once again it is seen that you are arguing from ignorance. Please take out an undergraduate textbook on evolution and read. A philosophy of science degree without knowledge of science! Duh.

As the thought experiment with the blind man in the maze proves, the blind man does not know which direction is right and which is wrong; if he goes right he does know it is right; if he goes wrong he does not know it is wrong. Without positing memory you cannot justify that nature retains anything.

Disproved. See above.

Finally, we can totally differentiate between a random mutation and an intelligent mutation. A random mutation destroys DNA it NEVER improves it. Therefore, we know for a fact mutations are NOT random.

Ridiculous. A mutation alters DNA letters from one to another, snips of some parts of the DNA or copies parts of the DNA and pastes it in other parts.
Mechanisms of Mutation
DNA Mutation and Repair

It is also important to understand that mutations are not random in the mathematical sense, as many deterministic processes contribute to mutations and hence often scientists can predict which stretches of DNA are likely to undergo what kind of mutation effects. Importantly, the DNA repair system itself is governed by genes, and one expects evolution through natural selection would favor those genes who can tailor the DNA repair system to eliminate bad mutations and keep good mutations. See below how it is done.
Edge.org
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Amos proposed that SNPs (single point mutations) may form more commonly around pre-existing mutations as a result of a DNA repair system. When the repair system encounters a mismatch in the genome, which may occur at heterozygous regions where SNPs already exist, the repair machinery rips up the mistake and relays the DNA to correct it. Because mutations can occur when DNA replicates, the extra rounds of DNA replication associated with the DNA repair system could potentially cause mutations to cluster. Using SNP data from the HapMap website for human chromosome 1, Amos calculated the average size and density of existing mutational clusters. He then ran simulations under the assumption of either this new, non-random mechanism of mutation formation or that of randomly occurring mutations. He found that the non-random model more closely predicted the frequency and density of the mutational clusters on the chromosome. "My theory is going to shake things up majorly," Amos said. "The concept of non-independent mutations simply wasn't thought of before -- this is completely new and it really changes how we think of DNA evolving." One interesting implication of this mechanism of SNP formation is that "it attracts mutations to where polymorphisms already exists, where it is likely to be tolerated [or even] beneficial," and vice versa, Amos said. "If you bias the mutations that do occur to where other mutations [already exist], you're more likely to do good than" if mutations occurred randomly. This mechanism, Amos added, may thus provide a way for the genome to reduce the overall number of deleterious mutations that occur.

Note what it is not. There is no intelligence guiding the system. The DNA repair mechanism, governed by genes, has itself evolved step by step through natural selection to optimize its performance so that it preferentially keeps beneficial mutations intact.

​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sorry been away.

^^ The above does not refute the actual argument being made. The above only proves that evolution, in the beginning at least was a very slow process that took tens of millions of years for each component to form. However, all that proves is that it takes time for the system to be a built. Like it takes time to a build a computer. It does not prove it was by natural selection.

If mutations were random, the we would expect to see find mutants everywhere e.g. Why don't we find elephants with gills? or fish with lungs? If it was random, then we should expect to find evidence of animals with genetic features not suited to their environment. The fact that we do not, points to only one obvious conclusion, that evolution is a guided a process. We must posit some intelligence that is guiding it. Not necessarily a God intelligence, but some sort of intelligence forming a symbiosis with the environment. The intelligence has the capacity to select features that do not serve it, but not purely blind matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

If mutations were random, the we would expect to see find mutants everywhere e.g. Why don't we find elephants with gills? or fish with lungs? If it was random, then we should expect to find evidence of animals with genetic features not suited to their environment.

No, we wouldn't. You are refuting a straw man version of evolution.

I can't believe you are still posting from total ignorance of the real theory.

Mutations being random says nothing about their frequency, however, there are mutants everywhere - you are probably a mutant, so am I. Humans have an average of about 60 genetic mutations (IIRC). Most don't do anything significant at all. Genetic copying is good but not perfect.

The idea that a mutation large enough to give an elephants gills, would actually result in anything resembling a functioning organism, is daft.

Genetic mutations that aren't suited to the environment do happen but they do not persist, for the very good reason that they are not suited to survival and reproduction in the environment - they die out. That is called natural selection.

Very occasionally (and because they are random) a mutation will do something that has a benefit to an organism in its environment. 'Benefit' meaning that the lucky recipient is more suited to survival and reproduction in the environment. As a result they tend to survive and reproduce more than those without it, and it spreads through the population. That is called natural selection.

The fact that we do not, points to only one obvious conclusion, that evolution is a guided a process. We must posit some intelligence that is guiding it.

No, it doesn't and no, we don't.

 

[Zadok]

I have not read all the posts in this thread - but I disagree with almost everything.


#1. I do not believe that a random event exists. Those that argue random events do so from a frame work of not understanding the parameters of the event.
#2. The Universe is isotropic – both in space and time. But I do not believe time is a dimension and time is definingly not isotropic – nor is time continuous. (as per Special Relativity)
#3. The Universe is also empirical. Some have argued that the universe may be a “virtual reality” and such arguments push the limits of the universe being empirical – but for any rational discussion I see no point in assuming non-empirical parameters.
#4. If anyone is going to introduce mathematical fractals into the discussion – I assume they are proponents of Chaos Theory – Which is the theory of explaining balance in complex systems based on the parameters from which the balance exists.
#5. Scientifically we define intelligence as the ability to learn and alter existing sequences of events. In short this means to learn and modify behavior.
#6. The theories of Dark Energy and Dark Radiation exist because the Universe is currently displaying non-cyclic behavior.

With the assumptions, I have provided above – there is no reason to assume that something exists in relationship to this universe that does not have an empirical effect somewhere in this universe. I also do not believe that evolution proves that such exist without intelligence but demonstrates the very scientific definition of intelligence. That is the idea existing sequences are altered – what some call mutations.

The problem is not a question of G-d but rather how we define G-d.


Zadok

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

No, we wouldn't. You are refuting a straw man version of evolution.

I can't believe you are still posting from total ignorance of the real theory.

Mutations being random says nothing about their frequency, however, there are mutants everywhere - you are probably a mutant, so am I. Humans have an average of about 60 genetic mutations (IIRC). Most don't do anything significant at all. Genetic copying is good but not perfect.

One of the predictions made by ID is that so-called junk DNA which the the theory of natural selection predicts, as it says mutations are random, is that it would be eventually proven that junk DNA is not junk at all, but serves a functional purpose:

In the 1970s, when biologists first glimpsed the landscape of human genes, they saw that the small pieces of DNA that coded for proteins (known as exons) seemed to float like bits of wood in a sea of genetic gibberish. What on earth were those billions of other letters of DNA there for? No less a molecular luminary than Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helical structure, suspected it was “little better than junk.”​

The phrase “junk DNA” has haunted human genetics ever since. In 2000, when scientists of the Human Genome Project presented the first rough draft of the sequence of bases, or code letters, in human DNA, the initial results appeared to confirm that the vast majority of the sequence—perhaps 97 percent of its 3.2 billion bases—had no apparent function. The “Book of Life,” in other words, looked like a heavily padded text.
​

Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.

Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA


​

In another words, there are no random mutations recorded anywhere in the genome

The idea that a mutation large enough to give an elephants gills, would actually result in anything resembling a functioning organism, is daft.

Your argument rests on an unproven premise, you would have to show me evidence of an elephant which develops gills but died out, but I already know you have no such example.

Genetic mutations that aren't suited to the environment do happen but they do not persist, for the very good reason that they are not suited to survival and reproduction in the environment - they die out. That is called natural selection.

Please give examples.

Very occasionally (and because they are random) a mutation will do something that has a benefit to an organism in its environment. 'Benefit' meaning that the lucky recipient is more suited to survival and reproduction in the environment. As a result they tend to survive and reproduce more than those without it, and it spreads through the population. That is called natural selection.

When mutations are random they destroy DNA and lead to the development of tumours, deformities, damaged organs. If mutations were random, they we would see examples of humans with tails etc(a human having a tail would not necessarily give it a survival disadvantage) or we could have white bears in Africa(no evidence of white bears in Africa) No, this mutation of white bears only occurred in the North pole, because white fur is needed to adapt to that environment, but did not occur in Africa because white fur is not needed, but black or brown is needed to adapt to the environment. We can see even recent evidence of this among humans, in hot climates human skin turned black or brown, and in colder climates it turned white. Can you show me one example of a native white person in Africa? No. And don't say there was a white person but they died out, because being white has got nothing to do with survival in Africa, there are white people living in Africa today.

I have just totally demolished natural selection.